|
="m.e.t.b.o.t.":voibhse5]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:voibhse5]
So your worried about your defense?
|
TransMonk
Apr 07 2009 01:29 PM
|
|
| ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]
Caught Murphy's adventures-in-outfielding yesterday? We'll see that a bunch (he was exceedingly lucky). On days when Sheffield is starting in right-- especially Citi right-- and we've got one of the three extreme-flyball pitchers (Santana, Perez, Maine) in our starting rotation going... you'll see that more often. You'll likely want to pluck out your eyes when you do. |
Beltran's among the best, if not the best, CF in the league and Church's RF is above average IMO. Reed is available in late innings and is advertised to be a fine replacment for Endy. Tatis is average as well. I'm not concerned about Murphy and/or Sheffield's defense enough to list it as a top concern. I'm inclined to think our starters, bullpen, hitters with RISP, 3rd base coach and questionable managerial blunders will each lose us as many games if not more than Murphy/Sheff's defense.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 07 2009 01:37 PM
Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 07 2009 01:43 PM
|
|
| ="TransMonk"]
Beltran's among the best, if not the best, CF in the league and Church's RF is above average IMO. Reed is available in late innings and is advertised to be a fine replacment for Endy. Tatis is average as well. I'm not concerned about Murphy and/or Sheffield's defense enough to list it as a top concern. I'm inclined to think our starters, bullpen, hitters with RISP, 3rd base coach and questionable managerial blunders will each lose us as many games if not more than Murphy/Sheff's defense. |
Beltran is THE best defensive CF in the league. Practically every metric out there backs up my homerism. But he can't be everywhere at once-- just close to everywhere.
Was almost hoping that "outfield defense" will be the correct answer by August, if only because it means that it will have been our most vexing flaw-- call it backhanded optimism. (Although I'm not quite rosy-eyed enough to tab Tatis an "average OF"; when I think of Tatis in the OF, I see in my mind's eye pictures of dancing bears, tightrope-walking elephants or NBA players waltzing on primetime reality shows.)
|
Edgy DC
Apr 07 2009 01:38 PM
Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 07 2009 01:46 PM
|
|
Well, then, I'm pretty cool. We have a perfectly good team, with sustainablity beyond this year sewn into the system.
1) We have exactly one bad contract right now, and yeah we saw it coming, but neither was or is it irredeemable.
2) The two best young players are tied up through the next few years.
2) The main contract coming due at the end of the season is Delgado's and the Mets have the option of resigning him or giving the job two either of two young hiitters establishing themselves.
3) The position set aside for our top young prospect is covered enough if he fails to break through, and open if enough if he does break through.
4) Our ace starter (a) isn't old, (b) doesn't have an injury history, (c) is in good shape, (d) is locked up for a rightish amount of years, and (e) isn't velocity-reliant.
5) We have adequate injury backup at most positions, save for a thin-ness at middle infield, and somewhat less of a thin-ness at starting pitching (but who has enough starting pitching?).
6) We can look at our next best prospect as a future candidate for second.
Yeah, there could be more organizational dept at starting pitcher, and a long-range catching plan, but to gnash over that is pretty miserly. They even appear to be throwing out the organization's history of cooperating with the draft slot conspiratcy.
This organization may be haunted by two September swoons in a row, but I imagine they're as healthy as any team in baseball.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Apr 07 2009 01:40 PM
|
|
I'm not sure whether this question is asking what the "fans/media" are gonna be mad about or me personally.
Something like outfield D is probably too subtle a thing for the former group to latch onto. I predict they'll come out firing hate guns at Oliver Perez asnd Luis Castillo and ask questions later.
Me, I'm concerned about the starters in general. They needn't be great but they can't afford to suck so much. It was not an encouraging spring from that perspective.
Oh, and I agree that some nights we may lose a game because of shitty OF D.
|
soupcan
Apr 07 2009 01:40 PM
|
|
="metirish":1ruxtcxp]Tempted to go with " outfield defense" but went with " other".
Other being the offense , specifically with RISP . Men left on base will be a problem this season.[/quote:1ruxtcxp]
Yup.
Un-clutchity-ness is my big fear.
|
MFS62
Apr 07 2009 01:42 PM
|
|
="m.e.t.b.o.t.":irr9oxvw]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:irr9oxvw]
Bbbbbuttttt, if you are solar powered, thermal expansion may be a necessary evil.
Later
|
Gwreck
Apr 07 2009 01:43 PM
|
|
I don't see the outfield defense as a problem. There was a fielding metric I remember reading that said he led the majors last year at making putouts that were outside of the "normal" CF fielding range.
Church is no slouch either. I don't think hiding Murphy or Tatis or Sheffield out there for 7 or 8 innings per game is going to be a huge problem. Maybe if we wind up playing two of them at once.
|
Edgy DC
Apr 07 2009 01:44 PM
|
|
m.e.t.b.o.t. is powered by the stored energy of wound springs.
|
MFS62
Apr 07 2009 01:51 PM
|
|
="Edgy DC":1xkvuyck]m.e.t.b.o.t. is powered by the stored energy of wound springs.[/quote:1xkvuyck]
Sounds like he has a lot of potential.
Later
|
metsguyinmichigan
Apr 07 2009 01:52 PM
|
|
="m.e.t.b.o.t.":2p3yirhp]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:2p3yirhp]
I think that's what happened to Aaron Heilmann last year.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 07 2009 01:57 PM
|
|
="metsguyinmichigan":3h1a2dvb]="m.e.t.b.o.t.":3h1a2dvb]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:3h1a2dvb]
I think that's what happened to Aaron Heilmann last year.[/quote:3h1a2dvb]
"What is this thing... humans call... 'boo'?"
|
Edgy DC
Apr 07 2009 02:00 PM
|
|
Wound Springs, by the way, is the Minnesota birthplace of Wayne Graham.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 07 2009 02:46 PM
|
|
| ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]
Something like outfield D is probably too subtle a thing for the former group to latch onto. I predict they'll come out firing hate guns at Oliver Perez asnd Luis Castillo and ask questions later. |
Fans seemed much more tolerant of "Bad Ollie" days before the 12 mil/3 yrs. Either CitiField's acoustics are far superior to Shea's, or I heard some loud booing on Saturday. (Was laughing with my Boston fan seat neighbors about it.)
|
Edgy DC
Apr 07 2009 02:50 PM
|
|
It's like they need a whipping boy. Heilman is gone and and he'll suffice. It doesn't mean he's anything different than he previously had been.
|
OlerudOwned
Apr 07 2009 03:57 PM
|
|
And still my favorite player on the team to watch, for better or worse.
|
Ashie62
Apr 07 2009 05:03 PM
|
|
I worry about injuries to the SP when we have an 8 game lead in September
|
TransMonk
Apr 08 2009 07:19 AM
|
|
Ben Shpigel weighs in:
http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/0 ... e-in-2009/
Manuel said the spacious outfield, quirky angles and limited foul territory at Citi Field would make him align his outfielders differently, bunching them toward the gaps. But he also said that he is afraid of Beltran's "weighing 145 pounds" by the end of the season from all the running he'll have to do. Surrounding him with Murphy and Sheffield could make for some, umm, interesting moments out there.
|
smg58
Apr 08 2009 08:07 AM
|
|
Why all the knocks on Murphy's outfield defense? The Fielding Bible had him at +4/+5 (meaning four saved baserunners and five saved total bases relative to the average leftfielder) last year, which is very good for an inexperienced outfielder who should only get better as he gets more familiar with the position. As for Monday, I saw Murphy make a nice catch on a sinking liner a lot of leftfielders wouldn't have gotten to, and I would not consider deferring to Beltran a little late on a flyball he'd have caught as well to be a bad omen.
Defense will be an issue if Sheffield gets significant playing time over Church, but there is no good reason to believe that will happen more than occasionally with a lefty starter, and probably not often at all at Citi, and never at Citi with a flyball pitcher. Otherwise, Beltran is consistently one of the top two or three centerfielders, and Church has made the top ten at his corner position each of the past two seasons despite limited playing time. I'd consider outfield defense one of our strengths, if not our biggest one.
Injuries are always a concern, but you can't worry about them until they happen. I consider you guys to be my media, so I won't worry about the last two points at all.
Starting pitching? Pelfrey has as much chance of going backwards as forwards, Ollie is like a box of chocolates, Maine might not be 100% or even close, and Livan had an ERA over 6 last year. THAT is a concern.
|
metirish
Apr 08 2009 08:35 AM
|
|
How did it happen that Murphy got pegged as a poor or average fielder when he got called up. Who decides that? Murphy played 4 games in the Minor leagues and had a fielding % of 1.000 which itself means little but I remember when he first came up and hearing about how he'll have a tough time in LH. Seems like that then is taken as gospel in the media and fans too. Will he ever shake that tag?
|
Edgy DC
Apr 08 2009 08:35 AM
|
|
The Mets also have a good defensive replacement in Jeremy Reed, and with him in left and Church in right, they can go with a three-centerfielder alignment on occasion.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Apr 08 2009 08:46 AM
|
|
Not to knock the Fielding Bible but I'd turn to that for guys I don't see everyday. For Murphy I first trust Eyewitness Defense, which tells me he's inexperienced and not likely to make very many good plays out there while always being capable of bad ones, but that he's also not below minimum standards for a guy who hits.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 08 2009 09:42 AM
|
|
="metirish":1uv5akl1]How did it happen that Murphy got pegged as a poor or average fielder when he got called up. Who decides that? Murphy played 4 games in the Minor leagues and had a fielding % of 1.000 which itself means little but I remember when he first came up and hearing about how he'll have a tough time in LH. Seems like that then is taken as gospel in the media and fans too. Will he ever shake that tag?[/quote:1uv5akl1]
Admittedly, it's a bit of an extrapolation, at best... but a reasonable one. He takes odd routes to semi-routine flyballs, seems to have a little trouble tracking flies, and very often running full clip when making routine catches (a flashing red warning sign of making late/poor judgements on balls' flight path). Given his history (At his 'first position,' 3B, DM was an E-machine... and he's put significantly less time in in the outfield) and apparent predisposition (hitting interest>>fielding interest), the visual evidence tends toward damning (if not being entirely conclusive).
He's young and athletic, so that'll help make up for any misjudgements... but it won't turn him into Endy. As far as the Fielding Bible numbers... wait a year or three (53 chances does not a representative sample size make).
If he puts up good defensive numbers, then I'll be willing to chalk up the aesthetic ugliness as just that. (And hey... I'm just looking for him to be decent/non-embarrassing with a glove on his hand, personally.)
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 08 2009 09:44 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":3aya22fi]The Mets also have a good defensive replacement in Jeremy Reed, and with him in left and Church in right, they can go with a three-centerfielder alignment on occasion.[/quote:3aya22fi]
Mike Cameron doesn't think that sounds so swell.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 08 2009 09:54 AM
|
|
="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":18pvw1zl]="metirish":18pvw1zl]How did it happen that Murphy got pegged as a poor or average fielder when he got called up. Who decides that? Murphy played 4 games in the Minor leagues and had a fielding % of 1.000 which itself means little but I remember when he first came up and hearing about how he'll have a tough time in LH. Seems like that then is taken as gospel in the media and fans too. Will he ever shake that tag?[/quote:18pvw1zl]
Admittedly, it's a bit of an extrapolation, at best... but a reasonable one. He takes odd routes to semi-routine flyballs, seems to have a little trouble tracking flies, and very often running full clip when making routine catches (a flashing red warning sign of making late/poor judgements on balls' flight path). Given his history (At his 'first position,' 3B, DM was an E-machine... and he's put significantly less time in in the outfield) and apparent predisposition (hitting interest>>fielding interest), the visual evidence tends toward damning (if not being entirely conclusive).
He's young and athletic, so that'll help make up for any misjudgements... but it won't turn him into Endy. As far as the Fielding Bible numbers... wait a year or three (53 chances does not a representative sample size make).
If he puts up good defensive numbers, then I'll be willing to chalk up the aesthetic ugliness as just that. (And hey... I'm just looking for him to be decent/non-embarrassing with a glove on his hand, personally.)[/quote:18pvw1zl]
And among other things, Murph was the first one to admit that he's a struggling outfielder, defensively, developmentally behind where the team would like him to be. Also, notwithstanding in-game fielding statistics, I suppose that the team can assess Murph's OF defensive skills from observing him during practice sessions.
|
Edgy DC
Apr 08 2009 09:58 AM
|
|
He definitely got better as his season progressed, though. His cahnfidence waxed.
|
Frayed Knot
Apr 08 2009 10:21 AM
|
|
I remember back in '99 when Rob Neyer (citing some fielding stats) pronounced Roger Cedeno to be a "dominant defensive right-fielder" ... and therefore the Hampton swap to be a bad deal.
Anyone watching Cedeno that year certainly knew differently and, yeah, Neyer took a bunch of e-mails on that one -- including one from me IIRC.
|
Gwreck
Apr 08 2009 11:16 AM
|
|
="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":21peht0h]="Edgy DC":21peht0h]The Mets also have a good defensive replacement in Jeremy Reed, and with him in left and Church in right, they can go with a three-centerfielder alignment on occasion.[/quote:21peht0h]
Mike Cameron doesn't think that sounds so swell.[/quote:21peht0h]
Yabbut that was a once-in-a-million collision.
I remember several games in '07 where we had a Gomez-Beltran-Chavez outfield that was treat to watch.
|
Edgy DC
Apr 08 2009 11:29 AM
|
|
Yeah, I don't think LWFS is really arguing against playing centerfielders on the corner when you are blessed with a surfeit of them.
|
metirish
Apr 08 2009 11:38 AM
|
|
I remember in those first games with those three playing the outfield there was if anything a need for Beltran to take charge as all three were capable of running down any ball.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 08 2009 11:55 AM
|
|
| ]I remember several games in '07 where we had a Gomez-Beltran-Chavez outfield that was treat to watch. |
Gwreck, that OF-- transitory though it was-- was the ex-girlfriend I'll never quite get over. Endy and Beltran are my 1-2 for all-time Mets defensive OFs... and Gomez was top-10 with a bullet when traded; it ruined me for all other Met defensive outfields.
|
smg58
Apr 08 2009 12:21 PM
|
|
You could make a very serious argument that Beltran, Chavez, and Gomez are the three best outfield gloves in baseball right now.
|
OlerudOwned
Apr 08 2009 12:25 PM
|
|
There was actually a recent SI article about fielding metrics that partially focused on the concerted effort which Seattle made to rebuild quickly through improving their defense, and how Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez were very much their main targets in that 3-way trade over the winter because of their fielding prowess.
|
MFS62
Apr 08 2009 12:36 PM
|
|
="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]| ]I remember several games in '07 where we had a Gomez-Beltran-Chavez outfield that was treat to watch. |
Gwreck, that OF-- transitory though it was-- was the ex-girlfriend I'll never quite get over. Endy and Beltran are my 1-2 for all-time Mets defensive OFs... and Gomez was top-10 with a bullet when traded; it ruined me for all other Met defensive outfields. |
Ricjie Ashburn, Gus Bell and Bobby Gene Smith (don't laugh) would have made an excellent defensive outfield in their primes. Unfortunately, the Mets had them past their primes in 1962.
Later
|
TransMonk
Apr 08 2009 12:36 PM
|
|
OO:
There was actually a recent SI article about fielding metrics that partially focused on the concerted effort which Seattle made to rebuild quickly through improving their defense, and how Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez were very much their main targets in that 3-way trade over the winter because of their fielding prowess.
I saw one of the heads on the MLB network say something similar a few days ago when talking about the Mariners outlook this season.
Could have been Verducci...which makes sense.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 08 2009 01:09 PM
|
|
| ="TransMonk"]OO:
There was actually a recent SI article about fielding metrics that partially focused on the concerted effort which Seattle made to rebuild quickly through improving their defense, and how Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez were very much their main targets in that 3-way trade over the winter because of their fielding prowess.
I saw one of the heads on the MLB network say something similar a few days ago when talking about the Mariners outlook this season.
Could have been Verducci...which makes sense. |
It's the short-term version of the Tampa rebuild (from 2006-2007 to 2008, the most substantive difference in pushing TB to its perch was defensive efficiency-- even more so than pitching, which was already largely in place).
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 14 2009 01:34 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 14 2009 01:53 PM
|
|
At the risk of becoming the Outfield-Defense dude, I'll direct your attention this-a-way:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... Id=rss_nym
Is this:
A) So Wrong
B) Oh, So Very Wrong
C) Ill-Timed, Just Mildly Wrong, and Sheffield's Bat Should At Least Partially Mitigate Starting a Defensive Liability in Front of Our Flyball-iest Pitcher After Manuel's Declaring a Re-Emphasis on Defense... and Benching a Guy Who Has Been a Doubles Machine in Order to Do So
[EDIT: Young Sam over at Amazin' Avenue is just as dismayed. http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/4/14/8 ... e-yourself]
|
OlerudOwned
Apr 14 2009 01:52 PM
|
|
Stupid to do it with a flyball pitcher on the mound.
Stupid to do it against a righty.
Stupid.
|
TransMonk
Apr 14 2009 01:54 PM
|
|
All of the above.
We've already lost as many games to outfield defense blunders than I thought we would all season.
I'd leave Church in at least until there is more info on how the new field is going to play. Obviously, Sheff is going to get some starts...but it shouldn't be after an off day with Ollie on the mound.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Apr 14 2009 09:35 PM
|
|
I'm giving Church a pass on that play. He made a bad one but we know he's capable of making it most nights and there's every reason to think the circumstances weirded the play up for him. And it was only the 6th inning.
The failure to win last night was all about being unable to hit stiffs like Duaner Sanchez and other lesser-known, less-talented Mexican League reclamation projects.
|
TransMonk
Apr 27 2009 05:17 PM
|
|
I was sooo wrong. Outfield defense has become a major concern for me.
What a fuck-up-fest leftfield has become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
